John Gabriel <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote innews:929be574-b881-4442-ad67-e741fb1823de@googlegroups.com:

> In mainstream mythmatics, the MVT is ignorantly defined as follows:> > If f is a differentiable function on (a,b), then there is at least one> point c, such that a secant line with endpoints (a,f(a)) and (b,f(b))> is parallel to the tangent line at c.

That is correct.

> But the converse of this is NOT true in mainstream calculus:> > If f is a differentiable function on (a,b), and a tangent line exists> at c, then a parallel secant line exists with endpoints (a,f(a)) and> (b,f(b)).

Because that is NOT correct, and easily shown to be false.

There is no requirements the converse need to be true.

> However, the MVT works regardless of the converse being true.

A) What do you mean by 'works'B) Why do you think whether or not a converse is true should be relevant?

> The> reason for this, is that ignorant baboons (that would be you) do not> know its real meaning. In the New Calculus, the MVT is defined> properly: > > If f is a differentiable function over (a,b), then {f(b)-f(a)}/(b-a)> is the (natural) average of all the ordinates of f' over (a,b).

OMG ... no. Really? That is simply hilarious. You're a total fucking moron.